Discussions

LSAT

New post

309 posts in the last 30 days

#1

A cannot B without C.

Translation:

AB --> C

/C --> /AB

#2

A without B cannot C.

Translation:

/AB --> /C

C --> AB

I'm curious about the logic itself because if it's true then it's a great thing for me to memorize so I can quickly translate group3/group 4 indicators when they appear together on the test.

0

I have the Sufficient and Necessary conditions cheatsheet PDF saved, but I was wondering if there was a sheet somewhere like this in the curriculum I may have missed for the indicator words (idk if that's exactly the right term for them). "For, since, because" introduce premise, certain words introduce conclusion, etc. Just a nice neat place where all those words are gathered as a way to study them. Hoping someone can point me in the right direction of course material for this or even if someone made something themselves for this. Thanks! #help

1

Hey Everyone,

I was wondering if anyone had more in depth tips about reading comprehension besides reading more. I'm in a rut where my reading comprehension is usually -6 to -10. I'm having trouble with author inference questions/most strongly supported according to the passage questions, and would really appreciate some guidance/input. Also, I'm wondering what strategies people use to get through specific passage types like art or science if that's possible.

Thanks!

1
User Avatar
•

Tuesday, Jul 27, 2021

aphroc975

RC -15

I felt myself might be the worst RC test taker in the discussion section. I have no idea how to improve it. Focusing on big picture has no help for me. I simply do not understand what the passage was talking about! My LR is now -5 but RC score could not be worse.

It's the biggest obstacle on my LSAT journey.

0
User Avatar
•

Tuesday, Jul 27, 2021

kenlirenee605

Prep Sets

Is there any way that I can take a premade 35 minute section without taking a full prep test? Looking to take full sections of logical reasoning without having to individually select things from the test bank or use a whole prep test just for one section

0

Hello, I am currently registered for the LSAT for August of 2021, but I think it may be a little too soon for me to take the test. My practice tests are a little all over the place, and my goal is at least a 160, ideally a 165. I registered for the August LSAT a few months back because I mistakenly thought it was the flex and therefore I had up to two weeks before the first test date to reschedule my test. However, that is not the case. For me to change my registration to October 2021, I would have to pay an additional $200. This is not money I am going to be thrilled about spending, and honestly I can't really afford to do that right now. But in the long-run, if I truly think it could help me bring my scores up, it may be worth it in scholarship offers. But honestly, studying since the start of May has been so rough on my mental health, I don't know if spending the extra weeks studying will be very healthy for me unless I change the way I am studying. My goal is to only have to take the LSAT once with score preview, and if I truly hate my score, cancelling it and just applying to law schools with my GRE scores that I got last year. Although not ideal since it would cut the number of law schools I am applying to in half, it could save me the added pressure of retaking over and over during the course of this next year. Let me know what you think or if you are at all in a similar boat.

0

I'm starting to get better at the test overall, and to do see improvement. In fact I'm doing much better than when I started studying for the exam. I was wondering if you guys could post what helped you learn/understand LR and make sense, any tips or advice. I'd love to hear from you guys, so I can apply that for myself in this learning process.

1

Anyone interested in doing a small group session to discuss the appropriate method of reasoning for certain LR questions? I know I have quite a few that I'm not confident about which one it is. Happy to use my examples as an "agenda" or have each person bring a few examples they'd like to work through.

1

Hi Everyone!

This seems to be a recurring theme in several LR questions, so perhaps worth considering. When attacking a support (premise to conclusion) in an argument, isn't the use of "some" i.e. other cases or situations, irrelevant - as we cannot know whether our case at hand falls within the scope of that "some".

Take for example the below question on proto-indo-european languages: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-29-section-1-question-16/

Here, we have to assume that PIE falls within the "some" languages which do not have words for prominent environmental conditions.

However, in the question on chess players and humming (link below), apparently it is wrong to assume that the humming falls within the scope of "some" involuntary actions as per AC (C).

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-20-section-4-question-25/

Any thoughts welcome!

0

so the august test is going back to 4 sections (one being unsecured correct?) so it would be just 3 scored sections (1LR 1RC 1LG) correct? so it would be beneficial to score practice test w just three sections instead of 4 right?

0

I understand why AC (A) is the correct answer because it is the best suited. However, is it really an assumption the argument depends on because if you utilise JY's negation method, you can get this:

Say, there is a political debt she owes to somebody longer than Lee & it can be as suitably repaid by appointing them to the Head of the Arts Commission, couldn't it be the case at the exact same time another job became vacant that was better suited to this unnamed individual (the individual Mayor Drabble had a longer standing political debt to). Therefore, allowing Lee to be appointed to the Head of the Arts Commission and fulfilling her longer standing political debt as soon as possible.

I am not sure if the slight flaw in the logic is due to it being an older LSAT so not as logically rigorous or I am missing something?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

#Help.

0

I don't understand why D is incorrect. So we are trying to explain why these canaries go through this yearly process of losing their neurons and then replacing them with new ones and the author claims that it's so that these canary brains don't get so huge that they can't fly so doesn't D provide a scenario where these canaries don't need to go through this process and can still fly due to "better developed muscles?"

And does this whole neuron regenerating process apply to all canaries or only some of them?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-13-section-3-passage-1-questions/

0

I made myself a reminder sheet for each section with recommendations/strategies to avoid errors I've previously made. Every section I do, I assess why I made each error and what I should do to avoid it, and then I add this recommendation to my reminder sheet.

I thought you guys might benefit from seeing what a sample reminder sheet looks like, the tips here are specific to me and many methods might work for your own LG practice.

  • Don’t go through the game in an automatic way, even if easy game, read and write down rules as carefully as if it were a tough game, sometimes they throw in unexpected things in easy games, and one word can make a big difference to the rules (for example “only if” vs. “if”)

  • If game 3 is really tough, check to see if game 4 is easier and do it first, don’t lose 5-7 points on game 4 by spending all your remaining time on a more difficult game 3

  • Before writing down a rule, play around with it in your head to get the best representation

  • Represent ALL rules even if it’s a weird one to represent (otherwise you risk forgetting about the rule)

  • If unsure how to represent a rule on the gameboard or which elements are important, look at questions to see what they ask about. For example in sequencing games sometimes they’ll make us think it will be double layered when the extra category is not that important and it doesn’t need to be double layered.

  • To check a rule, re-read it and imagine how you would represent it, and then check if the representation you already did matches sup

  • Check how each rule interacts with others, sometimes a rule might connect to several other rules, not just to the rule that came before it.

  • Check for floaters and circle or highlight them

  • Are there any interchangeable variables (floaters, variables affected by the same rule in the same way) or interchangeable groups?

  • if you're aiming to get all 4 games, splitting should be a LAST RESORT

  • Don’t split until you’ve read all rules and checked all your rule representations (otherwise might split on mis represented rule or on not the best rule to split on

  • Don’t automatically dive into a split without first checking if you need to by attempting some of the questions that give additional inferences. Might be a waste of time.

  • Split on rules that are annoying to have in rule list (for example conditional statements).

  • If the game has a lot of possibilities and nothing to do a split on, then it will be a rule driven game. If there aren’t any questions that prompt new gameboards (all the questions are “what must be true” and “what cannot be true”) then create my own few gamboards to see how rules play out and if I can make any inferences from that.

  • If you make any new inferences while doing questions, add the new inference to the main gameboard/ rule list

    • 80

    I thought the argument was a causal conclusion because of “increases.” Since the argument goes from correlation to causation, isn’t one of the assumptions that there is a causal relationship between watching TV and obesity among North-American school children? What effect does answer choice B have on the argument?

    https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-39-section-4-question-04/

    0

    I am studying for the LSAT full-time. I saw on one of the YouTube videos posted by a Korean-American HLS student that reading the Economist was helpful for him to hone his RC skills. I tried reading the Economist but it doesn’t relate to my current standing in the world, specifically in South Korea as a tutor. I am looking to read books and papers such as Federalist, Declaration of Independence, Democracy in America, Leviathan, Politics, Prince, Republic, Two Treaties of Government, Utilitarianism, Writings of Thomas Paine. These works are written by famous thinkers such as Thomas Jefferson, Tocqueville, Hobbes, Aristotle, Machiavelli, Plato, Locke, Mill, and Paine. I was just wondering to what extent reading these works would be helpful on my end to hone the RC part.

    Thanks,

    Ken

    0

    I recall seeing in the CC that "IS" is a conditionality signifier (necessary). However, is that the case all the time? Is "IS" a biconditional when it's just something like "The number 5 is hot ?

    0

    I HATE this section with a passion. I was never good at it, I never was able to finish on time, I tried every skill out there for studying and practicing and NOTHING worked. I do not consider myself a slow reader, but I do consider myself someone who tries to pay attention to every detail. My thought process was comprehension > generalization; I thought it was worth going slower if it meant I could understand the passage better, but this didn't help. What it did do was make me focus so much on the details that I would not only be snail slow, but I would second guess answers due to me giving my brain enough time to over-evaluate questions or focus on the wrong things. HOWEVER, I think I have finally hit a holy grail...and it might sound unorthodox...but LSAT be making you do some crazy things sometimes.

    My Method: What I found works best for me is an alternating method of focus and skim. As I start the passage, I read the first sentence slow and ask myself what is going on. I make sure I can pick out a focal topic or something to anchor my mind to. Then, I skim through the main body of the paragraph, focusing on simply acknowledging the details and what they are generally saying. Once I get to the last 1 or 2 sentences of the paragraph (nothing more), I slow down and focus on identifying how the author closes out the paragraph. I do this process for each paragraph: first sentence focus, main body skimming, last sentence focus. (If the paragraph is short, such as only consisting of two long sentences, then I read the whole thing in a medium pace manner, mainly paying attention to its topic & what its purpose is for being so short.)

    What I have found is that this method not only allows me to recognize the details of the passage, but it helps me naturally focus on the general idea. Focusing on the general idea when each paragraph is saying something different is easier said then done, but pin pointing specific spots in the passage that you know you're going to slow down at and focus on makes it easier to keep track of your thoughts and passage development. By doing this method, I still find myself having to reference the passage, but I can usually find where the evidence is fairly quickly and move on.

    I used to NEVER be able to finish the RC section, and even when I gave myself more time, I still would get -8/9 wrong. Now that I do this method, I am finishing the section for the first time, and I even finished one yesterday with a whole 5 minutes to spare; that's probably because with this method, I went from reading the passage in 4 minutes to reading it in under 3 minutes. That is a huge accomplishment if you're like me and also want to make the RC section illegal for mental health reasons. I still got -5 wrong, but that's at least some improvement, and I mostly got them wrong due to my lack of reading the answer choices correctly, not because I didn't understand the passage. I pray and hope this method works for some people because RC can be a major pain and sometimes the average methods just don't work. So here's something new. LMK if it works!

    30

    Confirm action

    Are you sure?